POLICE reforms, like many other matters crucial for the
establishment of the rule of law, have been relegated to the backburner by
successive governments at the centre and the states, irrespective of the
party to which they belonged. The police have become the handmaiden of every
government in consolidating its hold. This paper focuses on some critical
areas of concern.

It will be useful to begin this discussion by making a
brief reference to the futility of relying, beyond a point, on crime data.1
It needs to be noted that in respect of the incidence of cognisable crime,
during 1991 to 1996, the all India figure for each year hovers around 17
lakh. In 1993, it showed a decline as compared to the preceding year. In
1994 as also 1996, it showed only a marginal increase as compared to the
figure in the preceding year. It is interesting that while Uttar Pradesh
occupied third place after Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, Bihar, with its
much lower figure of cognisable crime, was at seventh position among major
states. This is equally true of cognisable crime figures for 1996 arranged city wise. Delhi was at the top with a crime figure of 54,199. Lucknow and
Patna were at 12th and 13th position respectively, with their crime figures
as low as 5,514 and 4,971 respectively! Clearly, there is a major problem
with the authenticity and reliability of crime data.

T

he total number
of cases for trial during the year, including cases carried forward, has
gone up steeply from 39.64 lakh in 1991 to 52.97 lakh in 1996. However, the
number of cases securing conviction each year has remained at about 3.20
lakh during four of the six years. In the remaining two years it was only
slightly higher at about 3.40 lakh.

As the reports of the Commission on Scheduled Castes (SC)
and Scheduled Tribes (ST), as also the National Commission for Women, have
brought out in their successive volumes, crimes against these vulnerable
sections has gone up. There is general apathy in investigating such cases
and the rate of conviction in courts is dismal. The National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) has repeatedly brought out the serious problem of
custodial crimes even in the national capital and the so-called progressive
states.

It is also necessary to take note of other demands made
on the police. The foremost of these is for the protection of persons whose
life is believed to be in danger. Earlier, this category included only a few
ministers and very senior officers working in highly sensitive positions.
Now, having an ostentatious security outfit and bullet-proof cars has become
a status symbol for persons in public life.

O

ften, threats
are engineered by protectees themselves to have their security arrangements
upgraded and continued indefinitely. Every attempt by the centre or the
states to review the list of those to whom security has been provided, so as
to reduce the manpower and vehicles deployed for the purpose, meets with
stiff resistance. The decision to give special protec-tion group (SPG)
security cover to the former prime ministers and their families is
scandalous. Except Rajiv Gandhi’s family members, none of the others have
any security risk whatsoever, but the country spends over Rs 200 crore each
year on the SPG.

Though no authentic figures, on an all India basis, are
available of the staff and vehicles deployed for providing security to
thousands of other protectees, this has clearly become the first charge on
the police budget in the states as also at the centre. The two high profile
commissions of inquiry set up after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi have
created a psycho-logy among concerned agencies to err on the side of safety
and not to resist any demand for providing security to persons in public
life. The archaic, flat-footed, ostentatious and manpower intensive
practices adopted in India, however, are in stark contrast with those in
advanced western countries where the emphasis is on providing unobtrusive
security with much greater emphasis placed on gathering intelligence and
analysing it with utmost care and patience

I

nsurgency and
terrorist activities, aided and abetted from across our borders, have added
new dimensions to the already complex task of maintaining peace and order in
the country. The other significant development in recent years is the rise
of Hindu fundamentalism and propagation of slogans such as Garva se kaho
hum Hindu hain (Say with pride, I am a Hindu). These have created new
and potent divisive forces in the country.

Communalism is bad, whether it is indulged in by the
majority community or the minorities. But, the communalism of the majority
community can hold the entire society to ransom. The wanton and deliberate
demolition of the Babri Masjid by the Hindu fundamentalist forces in
December 1992 was a watershed in the governance of the country. For the
first time this divided society on the basis of religion and created the
ugly and frightening monster of terrorism indulged in by the Muslims. This
has long term implications for maintenance of law and order as the Muslims,
with their population of over 150 million, can hardly be called a minority,
except in the relative sense of the term when compared with the large
majority of Hindus.

The country has seen a revival of religion in other ways
too. Celebrating Hindu festivals on a gala scale is yet another recent
phenomenon. Due to constant fears of communal flare-ups and threats of
terrorist acts, large numbers of policepersons have to be deployed in these
festivities and festivals for days together. Whirlwind countrywide and
statewide tours of ministers and provision of bandobast all along the
route has become a nightmare for the police.

A

gainst this
background, it is interesting to note the additions to the police strength
in the country during the last few years. The all India civil police
strength (including district armed reserve police) has gone up marginally by
65,000 from 9.04 lakh in 1991 to 9.69 lakh in 1995. Uttar Pradesh accounts
for the maximum number (1.24 lakh), followed by Maharashtra (1.21 lakh).
Inclusive of the armed police, the total strength of police has increased by
only about a lakh between 1991 and 1996.

The adequacy of police is generally assessed with
reference to three major criteria, namely, number of policepersons per 100
square kilometres of area, per 1000 population, and number of Indian Penal
Code (IPC) cases per civil policeperson. In respect of the first criterion,
there is only a slight improvement in that the all India number of
policepersons per 100 square kilometre of area has gone up from 35 in 1991
to 39.5 in 1995. It remained at the same level in 1996. In terms of number
of policepersons per1000 population, the all India figure was the same (1.4)
for the five years from 1991 to 1995. It came down to 1.3 in 1996. The
number of IPC cases per civil policeperson went up from 1.9 in 1991 to 2.3
in 1996. Here again, one sees a large variation between states, with several
states recording figures well below the national average.

This brings us to the question of the primary
responsibilities of the state. It is time some serious thought was given to
this subject by all states. As the annual report of the Reserve Bank of
India (1998-99) brings out, state finances are in a dire state. The gross
fiscal deficit (GFD) of the state governments as a percentage of gross
domestic product has gone up steeply from the average of 2.6% during 1991-97
to 4.3% in 1998-99 (RE). The reve-nue deficit of the state governments has
more than doubled to Rs 40,539 crore in 1998-99 from Rs 15,372 crore in
1997-98 – an increase of 147.6%! The revenue deficit for 1999-2000 is
estimated to increase to Rs 43,236 crore. The combined GFD of the states is
budgeted at Rs 80,223 crore, with the revenue deficit contributing 53.9% of
GFD.

Y

et another
disturbing feature is the sharp decline in the rate of growth of development
expenditure. All this points to the need for a serious review of all public
expenditure so as to concentrate only on those activities which are
inescapable. In other areas, the state will have to shed its
responsibilities. This will mean downsizing the government – a term which
gives nightmares to all political parties, leave aside the associations of
government employees.

It has to be accepted that all progress and development
will finally depend on whether the state is able to safeguard the life and
property of its citizens. The process of economic liberalisation and
globalisation set in motion in June 1991 cannot be carried forward to any
appreciable extent if the state cannot guarantee the maintenance of law and
order. Several new areas are now being opened up for the private sector but
private capital will not flow into new ventures without the guarantee of the
state discharging this responsibility.

In a sense, therefore, the basic functions of the
government boil down to ensuring law and order and justice, and providing a
social security net for the weaker and neglected sections of society – the
very responsibilities neglected by the state all these years. From this
perspective, the challenges in the field of police reforms are not only
crucial but have acquired new urgency. A conscious effort will have to be
made to see that every rupee spent on the police yields maximum benefitsto
society, as the opportunity cost thereof is so high. The following
paragraphs bring out some of these issues.

T

he first
concerns the composition of the police. The representation of women in
police is dismal and stands at less than 1%. This is particularly worrisome
inview of the increasing crime against women. It is well recognised
that in crimes such as rape, molestation, dowry deaths, kidnapping and so
on, victims would be more forthcoming if questioned by women police. The
same is true of the representation of religious minorities, SCs, STs, and
other weaker sections. It must be our endeavour to ensure that the
composition of the police reflects, as closely as possible, that of the
society itself. It is unfortunate that no serious effort has been made so
far to change the profile of the police to remedy these deficiencies.

World over, the emphasis within the uniformed services is
changing from large manpower to its technology orientation. Even after
taking into account the differences in the role of the armed forces and the
police, this should be equally applicable to the police. Mere addition to
numbers has to give way to making the police more efficient, productive and
effective by provision of modern aids and equipment, mobility and
communications.

As a part of this effort, the minimum educational
qualification for recruitment as police constable has to be increased to at
least passing the 12th standard. Advance increments could be given to those
possessing higher educational standards. Police constables, particularly in
metropolitan areas, should have even higher minimum educational
qualifications. But, this will be possible only if the entire gamut of
issues such as promotional avenues for constables are looked at afresh.

P

olice, law and
order are subjects which fall in the state list. It is, therefore, the
responsibility of the states to provide funds for these requirements. But,
due to the repeated demands of the state governments, the central government
has implemented a centrally sponsored scheme for modernisation of police
forces in the states. The scheme is funded equally by the centre and the
state concerned.

Central funds are made available on the basis of a 50%
grant and 50% loan. The amount has to be spent on prescribed items such as
mobility, communications, scientific aids to investigation, and crowd
control equi-pment. Statewise allocation is based on population, sanctioned
strength of police, number of police stations and crime per lakh population.
It is seen that the central funds are not being used by a number of states
due to a lack of matching funds from the state budget. In several states the
budget of the police department is under severe strain and there are
shocking news reports that police do not have funds even to buy petrol for
their vehicles or ammunition for weapons.

Yet another sign of the apathy of states is the lack of
adequate housing facilities for the police. Ideally, looking to the nature
of their responsibilities, all policepersons should be provided
accommodation by the government. Unfortunately, in a number of cities and
towns, policepersons have to stay in slums for want of government
accommodation. How can a person living in such squalor and filth and in
close contact with criminals and the underworld be expected to uphold the
rule of law?

Unfortunately, even the central government is remiss in
its responsibilities towards the central paramilitary forces in this
regards. It is amazing to see that the government has prescribed that
residential accommodation be provided only to 14% of the constables in these
forces. However, in practice, the percentage satisfaction is even lower than
10%. Only in respect of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, it is marginally
higher at about 12%.

T

his takes us to
the image of the police and the respect which the police enjoy in society.
As a recent Parliamentary standing committee2 report brings out, during one
year from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996, 200 Delhi police officials – 5inspectors,
22 sub-inspectors, 19 assistant sub-inspectors, 47 head-constables, 106
constables and one class IV employee – were arrested in 160 criminal
cases. Custodial crimes and human rights abuses by the police have continued
to cause concern. The Parliamentary standing committee rightly stressed the
importance of improving the image of the police and creating public
confidence that it is the saviour and not tormentor of society. But this is
easier said than done. For, the police, though a uniformed service, has lost
all the characteristics of such a service.

The genesis of this is to be found in the politicisation
of the police and dilution of its disciplinary standards. The command
structure has totally broken down. It was not, therefore, surprising to read
the lament of an outgoing director general of police (DGP) in Maharashtra
that he was head of the police force only in name without the power even to
transfer a sub-inspector. According to another news report, the powers to
transfer subordinates had been withdrawn from the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, and
taken over by the chief minister. The same is the situation in varying
degrees in almost all states. In several cases, the DGP s have been
summarily shifted to innocuous posts.

The matters relating to police reform have been gone into
by a number of state police commissions over the last 40 years. As early as
1959, the Kerala Police Reorganisation Commissionhad cautioned that,
‘The greatest obstacle to efficient police administration flows from the
domination of party politics under the state administration… the result of
partisan interference is often reflected in lawless enforcement of laws,
inferior service and in general decline of police prestige.’ Similar
observations were made by the West Bengal Police Commission (1960-61), the
Punjab Police Commission (1961-62), the Delhi Police Commission (1968) and
the Tamil Nadu Police Commission appointed in 1971.

T

he Shah
Commission on Emergency excessestoo went into the misuse of police
by the government and observed, ‘The police was used and allowed
themselves to be used for purposes some of which were, to say the least,
questionable. Some police officers behaved as though they were not
accountable at all to any public authority.’ This was followed by the
report of the National Police Commission (NPC) in the late 1970s. All these
reports have been gathering dust primarily because the political executive
is not prepared to let go of its hold over the police.

The concept of autonomy for the police has been upheld
time and again in a number of western and other countries. One of the
earliest of these decisions can be traced to the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts in Buttrick v. The City of Lowell, 1861, in which it was said
that police officers were not agents or officers of the city and that their
powers were derived from the law. The city or the town could not be held
liable for the mode in which they exercised their powers. They were
exercising a function of government delegated by the legislature.

I

n Canada, there
emerged a different notion that the police in theory were neither agents nor
servants of the Crown, nor servants of the municipality, but persons owing a
duty to the public. The judgement in the Australian case, Attorney General
for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Company,held that while
some police duties were statutory and other were derived from the common
law, all were of a public character. And although a constable is bound to
obey the lawful orders of his superiors, ‘neither they nor the Crown
itself can lawfully require him to abstain from performing the duties which
the law imposes upon him with respect to the preservation of the peace and
the apprehension of the offenders.’

In recent times, in R. v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn, Lord Denning said, ‘I hold it to
be the duty of the commissioner of police as it is of every chief constable
to enforce the law of the land… he is not the servant of any one, save of
the law itself. No minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or must
not keep observation on this place or that, or that he must or must not
prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any public authority tell him so. He
is answerable to the law and the law alone.’3 One can imagine how
different the outcome of the notorious cases such as Bofors, Hawala, HDW
submarines, St. Kitts, and scores of others, which have shaken the
confidence of the people in the rule of law, would have been had the police
in India too enjoyed similar autonomy.

A

ll proposals for
police reform are not marked by political overtones and some would not evoke
any political opposition. All that is required is administrative will, but
even this is often found wanting. There is no dearth of ideas and some of
the best minds in the country have been at work on this subject. To quote
just one example: a group of retired senior police officers in Maharashtra
under the chairmanship of V.G. Kanetkar made a set of recommendations in
1998 to speed up police investigations and court trials. Though some of the
recommendations, such as revival of the punishment of whipping, are
controversial, several others can go a long way in remedying the present
ills of the system. It is high time that at least such reforms were pursued
vigorously for adoption.

Due to lack of progress, in desperation, a public
interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court to force the
government to implement the recommendations of the NPC. The decision of the
court thereon is still awaited. A reference must, however, be made to the
report of the committee appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
under the chairmanship of J.F. Rebeiro to review and suggest ways and means
for implementation of the pending recommendations of the NPC, the Law
Commission, the NHRC and the Vohra Committee.

This committee had the valuable opportunity to give a
push to the long pending issues pertaining to police reforms. Unfortunately,
the committee has failed in this task. Thus, on an important question of
follow-up action on the recommendations of the Vohra Committee on the nexus
between criminals, politicians and bureaucrats, the committee has remained
satisfied with the observation, ‘It is learnt that a cell is already
operative (in MHA), but how far it has succeeded in its endeavours is not
known to our committee.’

The committee has come to the surprising conclusion that
the procedures adopted to select the chiefs and senior officers of the
central police organisations do not call for any changes. Even a cursory
acquaintance with the functioning of the central government would show how
this faith is misplaced, how arbitrary and opaque is the system, and how the
selection procedures need to be reviewed and replaced by a more transparent
and accountable system.

O

n the important
question of setting up of a state security commission (SSC) in each state,
it is amazing to read the conclusion of the committee that, ‘Taking all
these considerations into account, we veered round to the view that the
commission should be a non-statutory, advisory and recommendatory body for
the present as recommended by the NHRC... Our committee feels that this
would be largely acceptable to state governments as it will not impinge on
government’s overall control and superintendence over the police.’ With
this one recommendation, the committee has demolished the entire foundation
for the reform of the police.

Yet another ill-conceived recommendation is that ‘the deliberations
of the security commission should be released to the press after every
sitting’ (emphasis added). This will, in fact, deter free and frank
discussion in the commission on matters such as transfers, promotions,
postings, representations, grievances and so on. Nowhere in the world do
such discussions become public knowledge. The commission’s recommendations
(only the recommendation and not the deliberations) should be made public
only if not acted upon by the government.

The composition of the commission recommended by the
committee is also open to serious objections. The question of sitting judges
of High Courts being members of such a commission, along with the home
minister and leader of the opposition, goes against the principle of
separation of the executive from the judiciary. The recent trend of sitting
judges involving themselves in executive functions has long term
implications for the governance of the country and needs to be reversed
firmly. For the same reason, associating the leader of the opposition with
such a commission, which is to look after personnel matters of the police,
also requires careful thought.

Further, making a minister in charge of the home
portfolio the chairman of the security commission undercuts the entire
purpose of the exercise. The proposal to give the authority to NHRC to
nominate the members of the security commission is, similarly, difficult to
understand. Acceptance of these and several other recommendations of the
committee would be counter-productive and a window-dressing to show action
where there is none. It is hoped that these recommendations will not form
the basis for the decisions of the apex court in the PIL. The above
discussion admittedly makes depressing reading. The mirage of police reforms
continues to beckon in this long and unending journey.

Footnotes

1. The figures are reproduced from the publications of
the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, quoted in
Central Statistical Organisation, Department of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Government of India, Statistical Abstract India, 1998, April
1999. At the outset, it may be important to note a word of caution. The
crime figures can be called authentic and relied upon only to the extent to
which the crime is duly recorded by the police stations. As is well known,
the police are generally reluctant to register a complaint. If it is
registered at all, the effort is often to record it as a non-cognisable
offence. In some other cases, a complaint is registered but is filed as ‘A’
summary, i.e. could not be substantiated.